I'm not saying that Linux should have to remove the code SCO is bitching about
Er, the whole problem is that Darl & Co have hidden the specifics of the alleged infringement under a blizzard of obfuscation that would shame the entire line of politicians from Sargon of Akkad to George of Crawford.
I expect they didn't have enough computer forensic specialists to do the classic coast to coast simultaneous door knock.
Huh? You don't need a computer forensic specialist to do a door knock -- you just need a cop with a warrant and a tech to pack up the computers for transport to the crime lab.
The other likely connection between spam and terrorism isn't mentioned much, but it's glaringly obvious if you think it through.
Spam is a covert communication channel that is completely immune to traffic analysis on the receiving end (since it's broadcast to so many people, and there's no way of telling if one of them is reading another message steganographically hidden in the p3n!s pill ad). Spam offers the Internet equivalent of a numbers station broadcast.
Maybe the Feds have gotten a clue (in either sense of the phrase), and are anal-probing some spammers (using fraud, cracking, etc as probable cause and leverage) to investigate this possibility.
The bottom line is that all it takes is to increase the expected cost of spamming (the cost of being penalized times the probability of getting caught and convicted) above the cost of using a legitimate advertising channel (definition: the kind that the advertiser pays for out of his own pocket).
Freedom of speech does not include the "freedom" to use other people's private property without the owner's consent (or, in this case, against the owner's express prohibition -- and wilfully so, as evidenced by the use of filter-evasion tricks).
Right, and what happens when someone who really does want to purchase a year's supply of "Colon Blow 5000" sues them because the ISPs implementing the block are preventing them from accessing the site?
What happens is that the judge throws the suit out of court on the grounds that some idiot's desire to purchase "Colon Blow 5000" is irrelevant to the issue (which is that ColonBlow5000.com is in breach of contract). Ideally, the process involves a pee-pee whacking from the baliff.
Will the [MPAA/Sony/whatever] like this? I know we all thought Microsoft were going to buddy up with the producers of copyright by pushing DRM, but making portability easier than with TiVo?
Competition forces them to, well, compete, even if it means getting the **AA's little pink noses a bit out of joint.
The conscription is preferred by 79% of Finns according to the polls.
Er, maybe this statistic would have been more impressive if you'd omitted the ones showing that this is almost exactly equal to the percentage of Finns not subject to it.
Yeah, people will vote to stick somebody else with the bill (e.g. by forcing somebody to do the job instead of coughing up enough taxes to pay people what it takes to get volunteers). Duh.
It looks to me like Finland is trying to finesse the matter by having a draft on paper (because it "egalitarian", or something) but making it easy to avoid (so that you don't have a bunch of shlubs who don't want to be there screwing up the professionalism of the army). I'm reminded of the US "don't ask don't tell" policy.
They were actively damaging property. The people in the article were not.
Irrelevant. They were trying to get people to pay them for protection from a nuisance that they themselves had created in the first place -- a textbook example of extortion.
Yeah, and I hear that intrusive socialist police will get on your case if you try to get people to buy "fire insurance" (to prevent a visit from your friend Vinnie the Torch).
This was an extortion racket asking people to pay to avoid a problem created by the racketeers themselves in the first place, and as such was quite properly shut down. The only injustice is that the perps aren't going to PMITA prison.
I think it's really important to know that your ballot goes into the box, and not one that you saw behind a sheet of glass.
Have a slide made of transparent material from the viewing window all the way down to the collection box. Simple.
And again, there's the problem of Braille ballots for blind voters, which is significant.
OK, that's a legitimate reason for allowing the voter to touch the paper copy. The most secure arrangement I can think of would still be to put the paper copy behind a transparent window, with a hole where the Braille goes.
Ensuring that all those receipts stay with the election officials is preferable, but then there's no point in using computers in the vote casting process to begin with.
First, the paper printouts need to be the ballots, not mere "receipts" (i.e. the result of counting the paper printouts is the official vote that supercedes anything else if there is a disagreement).
Second, there are several advantages to using a dedicated computer/printer to generate the paper ballots, such as: 1)It produces a neater and more uniform (and thus easier to count by OCR scanning) document than handwriting, 2)It facilitates access by the disabled (for example, a blind voter could have Braille labels on the touchpad and a small earpiece to read back the entered vote for verification before casting it).
All one has to say under coercion is I don't remember my passphrase.
Oh, yeah, somebody who is trying to bribe or coerce you for your vote is going to believe that....
Or they can use some published "abstain" passphrase or whatever.
That won't help, even if the person attempting to pressure you is too stupid to look up this published passphrase for themselves to make sure you aren't using it. If the big burly Teamster is going to break your kneecaps if you didn't vote for Kerry, generating a bogus "abstain" result isn't going to protect you.
The "equality" guaranteed by American law is equality of opportunity (e.g. everybody has a chance to vote using a consistent set of standards) not equality of result (e.g. if you screw it up through your own fault and fail to cast a valid vote, too bad).
the option for voters to print off a copy for their own records
Absolutely, positively NOT. Permitting a voter to walk away from the polls with hard evidence of how he voted is an open invitation to corruption and coercion.
Slashdot Mirror
I dunno -- perhaps for the same reason suggesting that people attempting to collect debts should obey the law is "flamebait"....
Er, the whole problem is that Darl & Co have hidden the specifics of the alleged infringement under a blizzard of obfuscation that would shame the entire line of politicians from Sargon of Akkad to George of Crawford.
...it's nice to see that Baghdad Bob has gotten himself a new gig.
Huh? You don't need a computer forensic specialist to do a door knock -- you just need a cop with a warrant and a tech to pack up the computers for transport to the crime lab.
Spam is a covert communication channel that is completely immune to traffic analysis on the receiving end (since it's broadcast to so many people, and there's no way of telling if one of them is reading another message steganographically hidden in the p3n!s pill ad). Spam offers the Internet equivalent of a numbers station broadcast.
Maybe the Feds have gotten a clue (in either sense of the phrase), and are anal-probing some spammers (using fraud, cracking, etc as probable cause and leverage) to investigate this possibility.
The bottom line is that all it takes is to increase the expected cost of spamming (the cost of being penalized times the probability of getting caught and convicted) above the cost of using a legitimate advertising channel (definition: the kind that the advertiser pays for out of his own pocket).
Freedom of speech does not include the "freedom" to use other people's private property without the owner's consent (or, in this case, against the owner's express prohibition -- and wilfully so, as evidenced by the use of filter-evasion tricks).
What happens is that the judge throws the suit out of court on the grounds that some idiot's desire to purchase "Colon Blow 5000" is irrelevant to the issue (which is that ColonBlow5000.com is in breach of contract). Ideally, the process involves a pee-pee whacking from the baliff.
Once the studios have gotten some sap to accept payment as a percentage of net, it can cost billions (according to Hollywood Accounting) just to buy the tin for the can.
Well, yes, if Entity A invites Entity C over to see his etchings, have a few drinks, try out the hot tub....
Nope. The problems are side effects of consuming resources (i.e. running out and disposal of waste products).
It's ideologically convenient for some people to redefine the problem in such a way as to exclude engineering solutions, but it won't wash.
Competition forces them to, well, compete, even if it means getting the **AA's little pink noses a bit out of joint.
Yes, and if you read the article and looked at the picture, you'd see that that connotation fits this device to a "T".
Er, maybe this statistic would have been more impressive if you'd omitted the ones showing that this is almost exactly equal to the percentage of Finns not subject to it.
Yeah, people will vote to stick somebody else with the bill (e.g. by forcing somebody to do the job instead of coughing up enough taxes to pay people what it takes to get volunteers). Duh.
It looks to me like Finland is trying to finesse the matter by having a draft on paper (because it "egalitarian", or something) but making it easy to avoid (so that you don't have a bunch of shlubs who don't want to be there screwing up the professionalism of the army). I'm reminded of the US "don't ask don't tell" policy.
Irrelevant. They were trying to get people to pay them for protection from a nuisance that they themselves had created in the first place -- a textbook example of extortion.
This was an extortion racket asking people to pay to avoid a problem created by the racketeers themselves in the first place, and as such was quite properly shut down. The only injustice is that the perps aren't going to PMITA prison.
At first glance, I didn't notice the colon and thought Microsoft was rolling out a new FUD campaign.
Have a slide made of transparent material from the viewing window all the way down to the collection box. Simple.
And again, there's the problem of Braille ballots for blind voters, which is significant.
OK, that's a legitimate reason for allowing the voter to touch the paper copy. The most secure arrangement I can think of would still be to put the paper copy behind a transparent window, with a hole where the Braille goes.
First, the paper printouts need to be the ballots, not mere "receipts" (i.e. the result of counting the paper printouts is the official vote that supercedes anything else if there is a disagreement).
Second, there are several advantages to using a dedicated computer/printer to generate the paper ballots, such as: 1)It produces a neater and more uniform (and thus easier to count by OCR scanning) document than handwriting, 2)It facilitates access by the disabled (for example, a blind voter could have Braille labels on the touchpad and a small earpiece to read back the entered vote for verification before casting it).
Or use the receipt as a template to forge additional copies to help their candidate if somebody actually did try to use the receipts in a recount?
I have a better idea: keep the secret ballot system and keep the paper backups secured at the polling places where they belong.
Oh, yeah, somebody who is trying to bribe or coerce you for your vote is going to believe that....
Or they can use some published "abstain" passphrase or whatever.
That won't help, even if the person attempting to pressure you is too stupid to look up this published passphrase for themselves to make sure you aren't using it. If the big burly Teamster is going to break your kneecaps if you didn't vote for Kerry, generating a bogus "abstain" result isn't going to protect you.
The "equality" guaranteed by American law is equality of opportunity (e.g. everybody has a chance to vote using a consistent set of standards) not equality of result (e.g. if you screw it up through your own fault and fail to cast a valid vote, too bad).
Absolutely, positively NOT. Permitting a voter to walk away from the polls with hard evidence of how he voted is an open invitation to corruption and coercion.